The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that at the time of the traffic accident of this case, the road condition was improved, such as Sundays 12:10, and there is no obstacle to the view of the view of the view, and the location of the accident is also expected to be sufficient for pedestrians to walk, and therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, who proceeded over the speed exceeding 12 km, has violated the duty of care, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise. It erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the defendant violated the duty of care in light of the legal principle that "the driver of a motor vehicle shall not have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for the occurrence of an exceptional situation which is sufficient and difficult to expect by performing his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation." The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the above judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the records including the results of inquiry and reply to the fact-finding about the Road Traffic Authority submitted by the prosecutor at the trial, even if it is examined closely again in comparison with the records

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.